Category Archives: Third-party

Libertarians vs the Tea Party

Posted on by

I had a FB conversation with some folks earlier this week concerning the creation of third parties. My view is that forging such an alliance would be difficult because of the ‘true believers’ in each group—particularly libertarians who would not compromise, expecting others to accept their platform entirely. As I scanned across my morning inbox, I found an article who mirrored my view.

The annual American Values Survey released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, indicated that 61% of libertarians would not accept association with the Tea Party. The differences between the two groups is startling once you begin to enumerate them.

Libertarians are in favor of abortion, the Tea Party is against abortion. The Tea Party are mostly church-going Christians with a strong Bible ethic, libertarians are not generally religious nor church-going. Libertarians support legalizing drugs, the Tea Party does not.

In fact, about the only consensus between the two groups, according to the article, is the demand for smaller government and lower taxes. There is some support among the two groups for the military. The Tea Party is strongly in favor of a strong, well-equipped military, the libertarians generally do not, believing a strong military will be used for ‘foreign adventures’—like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or, perhaps, Syria. The Tea Party believes fighting our enemies on their territory instead of ours. Both, however, strongly support the troops, the soldiers, sailors, marines and airman as individuals and as groups.

Libertarians: Don’t call us tea partyers; survey finds blocs often clash

By Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is often described as both a tea party member and a libertarian, but it turns out that most libertarians aren’t tea partyers.

In a surprising finding from one of the most sweeping surveys on the attitudes and beliefs of America’s libertarians, a majority of libertarians — 61 percent — said they did not consider themselves part of the tea party movement, according to the annual American Values Survey released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.

“This new research reveals a libertarian constituency in America that is distinct both from the tea party and from the Christian right,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the institute. “While conventional wisdom has assumed that the tea party movement is fueled by libertarian convictions, most libertarians see themselves as outside of the tea party movement.”

Libertarians, it turns out, are principled but not always easy to pigeonhole: A majority of libertarians support legal marijuana but not gay marriage, they would allow doctor-assisted suicide but wouldn’t raise the minimum wage, and they really, really, really don’t like Obamacare. There also are signs that libertarians are likely to take up a bigger slice of the American political spectrum.

Mr. Jones said the survey this year represents the first time the institute has asked about libertarians, and the timing is spot-on. In some polls ahead of Virginia’s gubernatorial election Tuesday, Libertarian Party candidate Robert Sarvis is supported by a hefty 10 percent of voters, cutting into the base of Republican candidate Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II.

“I think we have a lot of growing interest in and activism among libertarians, but not a lot of data,” Mr. Jones said.

The difference between libertarians and tea partyers appears to boil down to attitudes about religion. Libertarians are about half as likely to see themselves as part of the Christian right movement as those who identify with the tea party, the survey found.

Libertarians represent about 7 percent of the Republican Party, less than the 20 percent of self-identified Republicans who consider themselves part of the tea party and barely a fifth of the 33 percent who identify with the religious right.

The survey found that the typical libertarian looks a lot like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Nearly 94 percent of libertarians are white, two-thirds are male and 62 percent are younger than 50.

Where libertarians and tea party members agree is economic policy, including support of limited government and lower taxes and opposition of the Affordable Care Act and additional environmental regulations. The survey, in fact, found that an overwhelming 96 percent of the libertarians polled have an unfavorable view of President Obama’s national health care law.

Where they disagree is social policy. As their name suggests, libertarians aren’t thrilled with government intervention on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and marijuana legalization. Nearly six in 10 libertarians oppose making access to abortions more difficult, while seven in 10 favor allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives.

Among libertarians, 71 percent support legalizing marijuana, putting them at odds with a majority of Republicans. About 61 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of tea party members and 69 percent of white evangelical Protestants oppose legalizing marijuana.

Even so, libertarians are far more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. Nearly half — 45 percent — of libertarians identify as Republicans, and 5 percent call themselves Democrats. Another 8 percent are aligned with — surprise — the Libertarian Party, while 35 percent consider themselves politically independent.

The article continues at the website.

I know a number of libertarians. I agree with many of the planks in their political platform—but not all. I’m a Tea Partier. I also know my libertarians friends will read the column above and deny its validity all the while mirroring those same differences publicly and privately. If I reach back into my psycho-therapy days, I’d call it associative blindness.

What would it take for these two groups to ally with one another? One statement in the article may contain the kernel of that alliance: Both groups really, really, really oppose Obama and Obamacare. Perhaps it will be enough. After all, it took only a single issue to unite a number of factions that created the Republican Party in 1856—slavery. Perhaps, Obamacare, will be that single issue that unites the libertarians, the Tea Party and all the myriad other conservative groups into a singular, powerful political force to change the course of the nation.

It is also interesting, according to Rasmussen, that people evenly favor the Tea Party as do those who support Obama—both at 42%. So if the numbers of Tea Partiers equal Obama supporters, does that include libertarians? No, according to the article above. That means, collectively, Tea Partiers and libertarians, outnumber Obama partisans. The remaining 16% must be the establishment GOP and we don’t know which side they would support. If we listen to Boehner, McConnell and McCain, they’d side with Obama.

Facebook

Friday Follies for October 11, 2013

Posted on by

The Shutdown continues. The Washington GOP leadership is quaking in its collective boots. Boehner and his pet House buds went to the White House yesterday with a debt limit deal—give Obama everything he wants for two or three months. Obama, apparently told Boehner that only acceptable solution, to Obama, was complete GOP surrender on everything. No debt limit deal.

Now, Boehner has no idea what to do next. Obama will invite Senate ‘Pubs in for a meeting. He expects McConnell to kow-tow like he expected Boehner to do. Will McConnell? Perhaps. But he has no power either. All spending bills—budgets, fund allocations, debt limit increases, must originate in the House. All the Senate ‘Pubs can do is to cheer them on, like Cruz and Lee have been doing—cheering for change, cheering to defund Obamacare. On those issues, McConnell could not care less.

But, outside the beltway, people—voters, are watching and they don’t like what they see. They are seeing a complete power grab by Obama and Reid. They don’t like it. Neither do they like the aimless, wishy-washy, sometime leadership by the House GOP. Boehner is completely ineffectual as a leader. Given his preference, he’d rather just cave than actually put up a fight. A leader and a fighter, Boehner is  not.

Scanning the internet headlines this morning, I found these three articles. All speak to change coming to the GOP, to politics-as-usual, to the country.

Third Party Sentiment Grows

Gallap conduct a nation-wide telephone poll last week of 1,000 voting age adults. No one party was selected over the other. Sixty percent of the respondent said a 3rd party was need, neither party was responsive to their voters.

In U.S., Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High

Twenty-six percent believe Democratic and Republican parties do adequate job

by Jeffrey M. Jones, October 11, 2013.

This article is part of an ongoing series analyzing how the government shutdown and the debate over raising the debt ceiling are affecting Americans’ views of government, government leaders, political parties, the economy, and the country in general.

PRINCETON, NJ — Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.

Trend: Perceived Need for a Third Major U.S. Political Party

The results are consistent with Gallup’s finding of more negative opinions of both parties since the shutdown began, including a new low favorable rating for the Republican Party, and Americans’ widespread dissatisfaction with the way the nation is being governed.

The prior highs in perceived need for a third party came in August 2010, shortly before that year’s midterm elections, when Americans were dissatisfied with government and the Tea Party movement was emerging as a political force; and in 2007, when the newly elected Democratic congressional majority was clashing with then-President George W. Bush.

A majority of Americans have typically favored a third party in response to this question. Notably, support has dropped below the majority level in the last two presidential election years in which Gallup asked the question, 2012 and 2008. Support for a third party was lowest in 2003, the first year Gallup asked the question. That year, 40% thought the U.S. needed a third party, while 56% believed the Republicans and Democrats were doing an adequate job.

The article continues with the statement that democrats and republicans equally felt the need for a new party(s). When voters from both sides feel the same way, the leadership of both parties need to heed the news.

Red State Secession

Pat Buchanan has a column out at the WND website. Like most of Buchanan’s writings, he wanders around the world for half the column until getting to the point. He may be slow getting to that point but when he does, he is accurate.

Is red state America seceding?

Pat Buchanan covers many movements across U.S. to divorce from urban rulers

In the last decade of the 20th century, as the Soviet Empire disintegrated, so, too, did that prison house of nations, the USSR.

Out of the decomposing carcass came Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldova, all in Europe; Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus; and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia.

Transnistria then broke free of Moldova, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought free of Georgia.

Yugoslavia dissolved far more violently into the nations of Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo.

The Slovaks seceded from Czechoslovakia. Yet a Europe that plunged straight to war after the last breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 this time only yawned. Let them go, all agreed.

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

…

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language – but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

While many red state Americans are moving away from blue state America, seeking kindred souls among whom to live, those who love where they live but not those who rule them are seeking to secede.

The five counties of western Maryland – Garrett, Allegany, Washington, Frederick and Carroll, which have more in common with West Virginia and wish to be rid of Baltimore and free of Annapolis, are talking secession.

The issues driving secession in Maryland are gun control, high taxes, energy policy, homosexual marriage and immigration.

Scott Strzelczyk, who lives in the town of Windsor in Carroll County and leads the Western Maryland Initiative, argues: “If you have a long list of grievances, and it’s been going on for decades, and you can’t get it resolved, ultimately [secession] is what you have to do.”

And there is precedent. Four of our 50 states – Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, West Virginia – were born out of other states.

Ten northern counties of Colorado are this November holding non-binding referenda to prepare a future secession from Denver and the creation of America’s 51st state.

Nine of the 10 Colorado counties talking secession and a new state, writes Reid Wilson of the Washington Post – Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld and Yuma – all gave more than 62 percent of their votes to Mitt Romney. Five of these 10 counties gave Romney more than 75 percent of their vote.

Their issues with the Denver legislature: A new gun control law that triggered a voter recall of two Democratic state senators, state restrictions on oil exploration and the Colorado legislature’s party-line vote in support of gay marriage.

…

If America does not get its fiscal house in order, and another Great Recession hits or our elites dragoon us into another imperial war, we will likely hear more of such talk.

Talk of secession has been around since the founding of the nation. Legally, it was settled by the Civil War—once a member of the union, the United States, always a member. No breakaway allowed.

That hasn’t stopped the talk, however. When the federal government and its leader(s) actively ignore, conspire to ignore, and violate the law and the Constitution, the illegality of secession loses meaning.

The South lost the Civil War for a number of reasons—lack of population, lack of industry, lack of capital and lack of allies…the South was outnumbered, out produced, outspent, and alone. The conditions today, are not the same. If the central government falls into turmoil and disarray, breakaways may succeed…for awhile.

Take that! You establishment buzzards!

Ann Coulter has a new book out, one written in her usual sharp and biting tongue. This time she’s aiming at the ‘Pub establishment, not the dems. The subject is a change for her. She has a reputation for being a GOP establishment shill—most of the income to her consulting company, comes from the GOP establishment. She won’t be winning new customers with this book unless it is from the Tea Party or the dems.

New Ann Coulter book rages at GOP with ‘change or die’ theme

By PAUL BEDARD | OCTOBER 11, 2013 AT 10:38 AM

Best-selling conservative author Ann Coulter, who has used her nine books to launch vicious attacks on Democrats, is turning her guns on Republicans in a new book out Monday, calling Florida Sen. Marco Rubio a hypocrite, urging donors freeze contributions to the GOP, and demanding that only governors or senators run for the party’s presidential nomination.

Her point in “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 — Especially a Republican” is to shake the party out of its doldrums in time for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

“Elections matter. We’re trying to make the country a better place. But if our candidates don’t win, we can’t do that,” she writes. “This isn’t a game. We aren’t picking basketball brackets. Bad things happen when Republicans lose elections and Democrats have veto-proof majorities,” she adds in the book provided in advance to Secrets.

While she is most noted for skewering liberals in her weekly columns and nine previous New York Times best sellers, “Never Trust” puts her on a path for a head-on collision with the establishment Republican Party and even a favored 2016 presidential candidate as she urges the GOP to purge itself of failed tactics, lazy consultants, and gripless potential candidates.

Take Rubio. He is one of the party’s leading 2016 candidates, but Coulter dresses him down for promising effective immigration reform while campaigning for the Senate but spitting out a more liberal alternative once elected.

She quotes him slamming amnesty for illegal immigrants as a Senate candidate in 2010. “And then he got to Washington and his big legislative initiative was a path to citizenship for illegal aliens! Yes, Rubio’s plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico is to bring them all here,” she scolds.

The fashionable pundit pummels the party for wooing untested politicians for president. “Why are any congressmen or businessmen showing up in our presidential primaries? They are never going to get the nomination,” she says.

The solution is a governor, just like four of the last six presidents. “I don’t care if it makes you feel good, conservatives: Do not ever, ever considering running a presidential candidate who has not been a senator or preferably a governor. No, not even our beloved Ben Carson. What are we concentrating on? That’s right: winning.”

What Coulter overlooks at this point is that our last two Presidential candidates met Coulter’s criteria. McCain was a US Senator and Romney was a Governor. Neither worked well for us.

And to grab that gold ring, she demands that musty political consultants be swept out of the GOP. She blames them for losing four Senate seats the Republicans thought they should have won in 2010 and 2012.

“Republicans were screwed by campaign consultants fleecing deep-pocketed candidates rather than doing the work of electing Republicans,” she says. “Republicans should refuse to give money to the party until we have the names of these people [failed consultants] and a blood oath that they will never be hired again.”

Coulter takes shots at Tod Akin and Marco Rubio alike. I didn’t vote for Akin in the Primary, I backed another. But, after he won that primary election, I backed him. Akin lost, not so much for what he said, but because his party turned on him and caused his campaign more damage than his opponent, Claire McCaskill.

Akin was betrayed by his party. The dems, if that had happened to one of their candidates, would have closed ranks and rallied around him. That, too, is another failing of the GOP.

 Change is coming. It is coming to the GOP, to the central government, for better or more likely worse, and to the nation. Hiding from these trends, ignoring them, will not prevent those trends nor the coming events. The days of the ostrich response is over. The time to prepare, for any or all the scenarios, has come.

Facebook

Friday Follies for October 4, 2013

Posted on by

I feel vindicated. Earlier this week, I created a scenario for the creation of a new political party. Today, I saw the article below that appears to mirror those first steps I formulated on this post.

House and Senate conservatives have formed a caucus all their own, separate and apart from moderate Republicans and their own GOP leaders. Their meetings, held in person and over the phone, have helped the relatively small band of lawmakers maintain a united front and outsize influence in a budget debate that led to a government shutdown.

At the meetings, they have shared information and ideas, developed strategy and discussed how to frame the fight over Obamacare as part of a larger budget debate. They met in person most recently last Monday evening, according to Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa — just hours before the government shut down.

The private pow-wows have enabled conservative lawmakers to coalesce around some of the hallmark proposals of the government-funding fight, including the notion that they could fund government programs one at a time. — The Washington Examiner.

On Monday, I speculated that Congressional conservatives from both houses would form a caucus in defiance of the leadership of both parties. It appears now that my speculation was accurate.

***

The new conservative coalition of Senators and Representatives have clout, as Harry Reid found out this week. Reid was disappointed that Boehner reneged on a secret deal he had made with Reid. Reid thought Boehner would support funding Obamacare in the CR in return for some nebulous promises from Reid. But, when the time came for Boehner to betray his party and House members, he didn’t. The pressure from House and Senate conservatives was too great.

Harry Reid puts John Boehner and his speakership in the crosshairs

By STEVE CONTORNO | OCTOBER 3, 2013 AT 1:35 PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday accused House Speaker John Boehner of reneging on a deal reached in September to fund government and said the Republican leader has put his political future ahead of the country.

Reid said that when he and Boehner met in early September, the Republican leader wanted a clean continuing resolution to fund government at $988 billion, or sequestration levels. The Nevada Democrat said Boehner then backed away from that agreement after conservatives in the GOP caucus flipped.

“We didn’t like it. But we negotiated, that was our compromise. The exact bill that he now refuses to let the House vote on, that was our negotiation,” Reid said. “I didn’t twist his arm. He twisted mine a little bit to get that number. Now he refuses to let his own party vote because he’s afraid to stand up to something he originally agreed to.”

On Wednesday, Reid offered Boehner an out by promising to negotiate a host of Republican objectives, like tax reform and the health care law, in a bicameral budget committee after the House passed a measure to fund government with no strings attached. Boehner immediately turned it down as a disingenuous proposal.

“I thought we had something he couldn’t refuse,” Reid said Thursday.

Reid’s Don Corlene tactics failed. Boo. Hoo.

***

The IRS has been targeting selected conservatives for some time. Evangelist Franklin Graham, and conservative Christine O’Donnell are two from that list. Now, another conservative has been audited by the IRS, suddenly, after his famous speech before Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, Dr. Ben Carson.

The long line of conservatives targeted by the IRS

By John Solomon and Ben Wolfgang, The Washington Times, Thursday, October 3, 2013

Tea party groups, Franklin Graham, Christine O’Donnell, a pro-marriage group. And now Dr. Ben Carson.

The list of conservatives targeted by the Internal Revenue Service for audits, tax-exempt reviews or tax privacy breaches keeps growing, raising fresh questions in Washington about whether a scandal the Obama administration has blamed on bureaucratic incompetence and coincidence may in fact involve something more nefarious.

The latest revelation came Thursday from Dr. Carson, the renowned neurosurgeon who told The Washington Times that he was targeted for an audit just months after he gave a speech in front of President Obama that challenged America’s leadership. The agency requested to review his real estate holdings and then conducted a full audit.

In the end, the IRS found no wrongdoing, Dr. Carson said, but it raised his suspicions about being singled out for his speech.

“I guess it could be a coincidence, but I never had been audited before and never really had any encounters with the IRS,” Dr. Carson said in an interview. “But it certainly would make one suspicious because we know now the IRS has been used for political purposes and therefore actions like this come under suspicion.”

The article continues at the website.

***

For weeks, since the last debt limit fight, Obama has threatened to take unilateral action to raise the debt limit citing Section 4 of the 14th Amendment as justification. He’s threatening to take action again to remove Congressional power of the purse.

If Congress Won’t Raise the Debt Ceiling, Obama Will Be Forced to Break the Law

Wouldn’t it be better to save the nation from default by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, than to stand by and do nothing?

Back in 2011, I found myself writing (and writing and writing and writing and writing) about Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment. Afterwards, it seemed like a bizarre interlude: The brief crisis about the debt ceiling surely would not repeat itself in our lifetimes. After all, President Obama was handily reelected, the Democrats held onto the Senate, and the Republicans must surely have learned their lesson.

Or not so much.

Regardless of how the current shutdown crisis ends, it seems there will be a second debt-ceiling crisis two weeks from now. And the questions are flying again: Is the debt-ceiling statute unconstitutional? Can Obama “invoke” Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment and assert authority to breach the debt ceiling to pay “the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”? Or can one party, decisively defeated in a nationwide election and controlling only the lower house of the legislature, threaten the full faith and credit of the United states — and the health of the world economy — in pursuit of its short-term partisan advantage?

The world has heard enough from me on this subject, but three nuanced analyses are worth looking at. The first, by Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings Institution, notes that the debt-ceiling crisis threatens not just the president’s constitutional duty to make payments on the public debt but also the accompanying requirement that he spend money lawfully appropriated by Congress, either as part of a yearly budget or as part of statutes authorizing “entitlement” payments like Medicare or veterans’ benefits.

Failing to do any of these things would be a default on the president’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The president may not be able to obey all three sources of law; if so, Aaron argues, he should make the payments and ignore the debt ceiling. “The debt ceiling is the fiscal equivalent of the human appendix — a law with no discoverable purpose,” he writes. “If Congress leaves the debt ceiling at a level inconsistent with duly enacted spending and tax laws, the president has no choice but to ignore it.”

Aaron’s argument echoes the elegant analysis last fall by law professors Neil Buchanan of George Washington University and Michael Dorf of Cornell. These two prominent scholars concluded that paying appropriated monies and interest on the debt represents the “least unconstitutional” option open to a president when Congress refuses to approve a debt-ceiling increase.

The writer above is a liberal, as you probably noticed. Like all liberals, he sees the Constitution as an impediment—unless it can be twisted to their advantage. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment gives the President NO POWER to unilaterally raise the debt, nor spend federal funds not authorized by Congress, specifically by the House of Representatives. To do so would eliminate the Balance of Powers in the Constitution; the balance deliberately designed to constrain the excesses of government.

If Obama and the congressional dems follow this path, it can only be corrected by counter-balancing force. I would much prefer we don’t go there!

Facebook

Third Parties

Posted on by

To the best of my memory, there has only been one successful third party in the history of the United States—the Republican Party. There has been many attempts, such as Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, commonly known as the Bull Moose Party in 1912, Thomas J. Anderson’s American Party in 1976, and Ross Perot’s ‘Independent’ party in 1992. Neither Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas J. Anderson, nor Ross Perot, were successful. Instead, these three third party candidates insured the election of Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. How? They sucked away votes that would have gone to the Republican candidate.

If a third party arose today, would circumstances in the next Presidential election be any different? Probably not. Presidential elections are determined by the highest number of votes. It’s is highly unlikely that any number of minor parties could combine and gather sufficient votes to win.

Control of Congress, however, does not have to be a binary decision—dem or ‘pub. Coalitions can exist, and control Congress.

The Republican Party evolved from the disintegration of the Whig Party in 1856. The Kansas-Nebraska Act divided the Whigs over support for slavery and the creation of new slave states. The Whigs had lost their vision and their core during the slavery debates of that time. The anti-slavery elements of the Whigs created the Republican Party that, in 1860, elected Lincoln for President.

The Whig part died over slavery. The Republican party is teetering, perhaps on its death bed, over socialism and big government. Like the Whigs, the Republican establishment has lost its vision.

In my last post, I said the Republican party is dissolving. It hasn’t broken up yet. But, taking that thought further, how could such a dissolution occur?

There are a number of scenarios that could trigger the breakup. One, that I think is likely, is the public formation of a conservative faction within the Republicans in Washington. We know there are conservatives, all we need do is to watch their voting records. They haven’t, yet, created a voting bloc.

As an example, what if Cruz, Lee, Paul, maybe Rubio and others, like those who supported Ted Cruz’s “long speech” last week, were to form a…let’s call it The Tea Party Caucus. A caucus who would examine each voting issue, whether it is the Continuing Resolution, the Debt Limit, or other controversial issues, and determine how they would vote—as a bloc. That would be a first step towards a third party.

The caucus would divide the conservatives from RINOs like McConnell, McCain, Graham, Cornyn, and others like them in the House. The Tea Party Caucus would vote enbloc. They would present candidates for Congressional offices like Speaker and Majority/Minority Leader. They would form intra and extra-party coalitions to wrest control from the establishment of both parties. I note that Mancin (D-WV) has voted very conservatively for a democrat, often against his party leadership. There are a few more dems like him that may slip away from that democrat dictatorship in Washington.

Come the next national election, the establishment of both party would attempt to remove these conservatives during the primary. At this point, if the establishment blocked conservatives during the primary process, or in the primary election, it is quite possible, the conservatives would run as independents—perhaps creating a real Tea Party or whatever name they chose.

It would be a critical decision. Historically, new parties lose their first elections as did the Republicans in 1856 and the American Party in 1972, 1976 and 1980. The Republicans survived and won in 1860. The American Party failed each time and faded away.

Would the new Tea Party political machine fail too? Perhaps, if there aren’t enough officeholders and candidates, and public, grassroots voters to sustain the new party. If the bigger conservative names like Cruz, Lee, Paul and the others move enmass to the new party, the probability of it surviving is much, much greater. The new party would have existing officeholders in the Senate, some would win seats in the House, others would win as ‘Pubs or Dems and vote as a coalition alongside the new conservative Tea Party Congressmen. Another successful election cycle with more officeholders as members of the new party or aligned politically with them and the new third party would remain as a voter option against the big government dem and ‘Pub parties.

Is this a viable scenario? I have no idea. I’m no political pundit, just a retired engineer with a taste for history and political trends. Will something happen? Yes. Every day brings more evidence of the disintegration of the Republicans. Just look at the antics over defunding Obamacare. The Senate ‘Pubs betrayed their constituents, again, allowing Reid to reinstate Obamacare funding. The CR went back to the House where Boehner assured the funding for Obamacare while cutting a minor tax of medical devices and delaying some of the Obamacare deadlines. The ‘Pub establishment of both houses of Congress has not endorsed funding Obamacare.

The Republican establishment sided with the dems to protect Obamacare. The one beneficial result is that we now know explicitly, who are our ‘Pub Senate traitors. Here is Missouri, a Facebook group, “Replace Roy Blunt,” doubled its membership within hours of Blunt’s vote to allow Reid to reinstate Obamacare funding.

These are the 25 Republicans who voted with Reid to invoke cloture on the CR:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Jeff Chiesa (R-NJ)
Daniel Coats (R-IN)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
John Thune (R-SD)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

— CNS News.

The Cloture vote had 25 establishment ‘Pubs supporting Harry Reid and 19 ‘Pubs who supported Cruz and Lee. Nineteen potential members of a new conservative party. Let’s remember in the coming elections, who supported us, the conservative base, and who, like Roy Blunt, didn’t and supported Harry Reid against us.

Friday Follies for September 27, 2013

Posted on by

Quote of the Day:

“…the fresh crop of newcomers — Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas — are children of the new age — noisy, rambunctious, impatient and impenitent, even. They’re not coming to town to carve out a sinecure, to be carried out feet first a quarter of a century later leaving no impression but the shape of their ample bottoms in an easy chair. They’re neither impressed by the ritual of “the world’s oldest deliberative body,” nor respectful of the ivy-encrusted tradition that binds it to the past. They’re contemptuous of all that. For better or worse, they’re coming only to do a job.” — Wes Pruden, The Washington Times.

***

If you were to draw back and review the events of the last few weeks dispassionately, you would see what is hidden from the GOP establishment. The Republican Party is dissolving.

If we are to believe the GOP establishment, Obamacare will collapse of its own impracticability. All we have to do is wait. The New Boys (a term I’ll adopt in want of a better one,) say, “No! Kill it now before it irretrievably damages the country.”

Those two viewpoints reveal the dichotomy of the GOP, the division between the establishment who wants not to make waves least they be damped, and those who knows the waves are coming regardless and we’ll all be wettened in the deluge of failing liberalism.

Wes Pruden, in the article that I took his quote above, notes the changes and the divisiveness within the GOP. The New Boys have come to town with an agenda. It’s not their agenda, it is the agenda of their constituents that says, “NO MORE.”

It is increasingly apparent that the divisions will not—can not heal given the intransigence of the Washington establishment. I now believe it is only a matter of time before the conservatives of the GOP depart. They will declare themselves ‘independent’ one by one, no longer giving allegiance to the GOP. At some point, they will declare a unity of goals and principles and a new party/association/alliance will emerge and the two-party system will dissolve.

Pundits will declare than our government was designed as a two-party system. That is not true. It was envisioned to be without political parties at all, but, given human nature, people of like opinions will gather and merge into political forces.

Perhaps it is time for the two-party system to become a three-party system. The libs should applaud. After all, the nation will then follow the multiparty politics of their beloved Europe.

Keep focused on the Objective

Posted on by

The time limit has passed.  Supposedly, the option for Akin to resign as the ‘Pub Senate candidate passed yesterday at 5PM CDT.  From what I understand, it will now take a court order to remove him as a candidate. 

There are no good options now but let’s take a look at some of those proposed solutions.

  1. Have Sarah Steelman or John Brunner run for the Senate as write-in candidates.  Unfortunately, they are prohibited by law from running, as write-ins, for an office when they’ve lost the primary for that same office.
    ”write-in candidate” is a person

    whose name is not printed on the ballot (see 115.453(4,5,6) RSMo); and who has filed a declaration of intent  to be a write-in candidate for election to office with the proper election authority prior to 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday immediately preceding the election day. It is not necessary to file a declaration of intent if there are no candidates on the ballot for that office. (see 115.453 (4) RSMo) 

    Frequently asked questions on write-in candidatesCan a write-in candidate be on a primary election ballot? No. (Section 115.453 (5) RSMo)


    If a candidate runs in a primary election and loses, can the person run in the general election for the same  office?     No.  If a candidate files for nomination to an office and is not nominated at a primary election, that candidate cannot file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate for the same office at the general election. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo)     

    Are write-in candidates posted at the polling place? No. The election authority shall furnish a list to the election judges and counting teams prior to Election Day of all write-in candidates who have filed a declaration of intent. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo)Are write-in votes counted for every name that is written in?

      No. If a candidate is on the ballot for an office, write-in votes are counted only for the candidates who have filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate with the proper election authority.  (Section 115.453(4), first sentence) If no candidate is on the ballot for an office, it is not required to file a declaration of intent and votes are counted for every name properly written in. (Section 115.453(4) RSMo, last sentence.I am not a lawyer, but running as a 3rd-party candidate could fall under this prohibition as well.  Sarah Palin today suggested that Sarah Steelman run as a 3rd-party candidate.  Sorry Sarah P, that is not a good idea, nor, if the above statutes are applicable, a legal option.

  2. Shift support to another current candidate such as the one from the Libertarian party.Who?

    That says it all. I don’t know who’s running as the Libertarian candidate. I doubt many do since the Libertarians usually are only pull single-digit percentages in the state elections. (I had to look him up. It’s John Dine (L) who is the Libertarian candidate for the US Senate.)

  3. Remove Akin via a court order and the ‘Pub state Central Committee selects a replacement.  Wow! That would really resolve things.  The pro-Akin supporters against the non-Akin supporters. That would guarantee a split party and likely would hand the election to Claire McCaskill.

None of the options above are really viable. Each of those options would split the votes of the Party and McCaskill wins.  THAT IS WHAT THE DEMS WANT!

Let’s not forget the Objective of this exercise, this election.

Remove Claire McCaskill from office and replace her with a conservative Senator. 

I didn’t vote for Akin in the primary. He won without my vote. It’s the fact. Akin won the primary legally.

So. Sarah Palin, as much as I like you, butt out! 

John Dine: find your own supporters. Don’t plan on poaching from the ‘Pubs. 

‘Pubs: Man up. It’s time to pull up your big-boy pants and get on with life. For better or worse, the party has a candidate for Senate and it’s Todd Akin. He didn’t quit. Your hissy-fits didn’t work. Now recognize the reality and rally behind Akin and let’s win! Claire McCaskill must go!

Since Crossroads and the RNC cut funds to Akin, let’s make up the difference.  Any lessening of support will hand the election to McCaskill.

Let’s never forget the Objective: Claire McCaskill must be removed from the Senate and replaced with a conservative Senator.

Facebook

Ka-Boom…boom…boom!

Posted on by

I was awakened this morning to lightning and thunder-boomers.  A front has moved in with projections of rain of one to two inches per hour with lightning for most of the day.  Not one of may favorite forecasts for the start the day.

One impact of the weather is whether I’ll go see and hear Rick Santorum tonight.  He has scheduled a one-hour rally in a neighboring town tonight.  Santorum is not at the top of my GOP list, but I would be interested in hearing what he has to say. If it came to a choice between Santorum and Romney, I’d take Santorum in a flash!

It seems that a lot of big-money backers are supporting Romney.  The Super-PACs (read that as the ‘Pub establishment) are pushing the negative campaign allowing Romney to avoid some responsibility.

All the polls in the upcoming primaries and caucus’ show Romney 10-20 points ahead of Gingrich, his closest competitor.  I suppose those figures are true.  I can understand why the establishment and the “independents” would like Romney.  Those so-call independents are the democrat cross-overs who are disillusioned with Obama. They choose Romney because he’s one of them. 

I suppose in Massachusetts, Romney can truthfully claim to be a conservative.  Everywhere else in the country, he’d be called a democrat.  But then so are most of the ‘Pub establishment. The only reason they oppose the democrats is to gain power for themselves.  Other than that, there isn’t much difference between the two.  As proof, all I need to do is cite the actions of McConnell and Boehner this last year.

Regardless, I’ll vote for the ‘Pub candidate because they can’t be any worse than Obama and that is a poor excuse for voting. I’d much rather be voting for something than to be voting against something. My preference is to not be voting for the least of two bad options but that is the state of the Republican party today.  I’m beginning to think the ‘Pubs aren’t redeemable. At least we’ll have four years to make the Tea Party into a true conservative political party.